Cradle of Liberty rent trial begins

[emb021 16]

While NJCubScouter is correct, everyone needs to keep in mind that we are judging the past with how things are viewed today. Actually, the BSA of early days was in many ways WAY more progressive then the rest of society.

 

Yes, we may bemoan the fact that troops were segregated and there were separate camps for blacks. BUT we forget that the BSA *did* allow blacks to join!! Many other orgs would not. (The Lone Scouts of America was for whites only, tho I don't know how they could have enforced that)

 

We also allowed for Catholics, Jews and other religious and ethnic minority to join, when that was also not the norm. (I know of a story of H. Roe Bartle being confronted with an angry mob in the 20s for appointing a Catholic to a Commissioner position in the mid-West). They had groups within the BSA national to help both negro and Indian youth be scouts (the forerunners to the later ScoutReach efforts?).

 

Yes, we may wish the BSA had been a bit quicker to open up its adult positions to women. They were pretty forward thinking to open up Explorers to females when they did, IMO.

 

While some may wish them to be quicker to resolve the various "3G" issues, I think some need to do some research into the issues before they pass judgement.

 

 

[NJEaglemom 10]

Just saw on KWY News in Philly that the Boy Scouts won the case.

[oldsm 10]

From Foxnews.com just now (6/24/10 @ 11:43 a.m.):

 

Boy Scouts Win Battle in Court

June 23, 2010 - 12:32 PM | by: Rick Leventhal

 

UPDATE:

 

A Philadelphia jury has ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, meaning they will not be evicted from their home or forced to pay rent, at least for now.

 

Outside the courthouse, a lawyer for the Boy Scouts, Jason Gosselin, told Fox News the Scouts won on the most important issue, that of First Amendment rights. The jury found the city posed an unconstitutional condition on the organization by asking it to pay $200,000 annual rent on property it was leasing for a dollar a year, in a building the Scouts built and paid for themselves, all because the city felt the Scouts were in violation of Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws.

 

"What we really want is to sit down with the city and resolve this matter once and for all" Gosselin says.

 

Philadelphia's response: "We are disappointed that the jury did not appreciate the City's obligation to deploy municipal resources in a manner that protects the rights of all of Philadelphia's citizens. While the good work of the Boy Scouts cannot be disputed, the City remains steadfast in its commitment to prevent its facilities from being used to disadvantage certain groups. In the meantime, we will review the trial record to determine our legal options."

 

***

 

A happy day. But I'll bet it's not over until the proverbial fat lady sings. Do I hear "appeal"?

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/23/boy-scouts-battle-in-court/?test=latestnews

Edit to correct typo: oldsm(This message has been edited by oldsm)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Yes, I think you do hear "appeal." At least, I think I would recommend one if I were representing the city. I'm really not sure why this case would have gone to a jury. The issue in the case seems to be a legal issue (which are decided by judges) rather than a factual issue (which are, sometimes, decided by juries.)